Six bills introduced by District 6 Councilman Mike Archer, R-Oakville, were passed at the St. Louis County Council’s Feb. 10 meeting.
First up was a request to rezone a 2.50-acre tract of land located southeast of Tesson Ferry Road and approximately 430 feet west of Suson Hills Drive from a C-8 Planned Commercial District to an M-3 Planned Industrial District. The site, which abuts Suson Park to the east, is currently developed with a single-story commercial building containing a flooring company, outdoor storage for commercial use and a telecommunications tower. The petitioner requested that this site be used for the outdoor storage of materials for landscaping contractors and general contractors. A new prefabricated metal building will also be constructed on the site for an office, and the existing telecommunications tower will remain in place. This was passed unanimously by the council without any further discussion.
Another rezoning request was discussed next, in which the petitioner requested that a 1.11-acre parcel on Arthur Lane be changed from a R-7 Residence District to a C-8 Planned Commercial District in order to use the site as a vehicle inventory storage for Frank Leta Acura. The car dealership sits immediately south of the parcel. It should be noted that the petitioner stated the site would only be accessed via the car dealership’s lot, not from Arthur Lane. This bill, too, was passed unanimously by the council without any further discussion.
Yet another bill involving rezoning followed, though this bill had to do with housing. The petitioner requested that a 12.02-acre site made up of three parcels — located on the west side of Heintz Road, between Old Baumgartner Road and Baumgartner Road, and directly adjacent to Mattesse Creek to the west — be rezoned from a R-2 15,000 square foot Residence District to a R-3 10,000 square foot Residence District; a Planned Enviornment Unit (P.E.U) procedure in the R-3 Residence District was also requested. The petitioner intends to develop this property into a 40-lot subdivision for single-family residences ranging in size from 7,000 to 17,700 square feet. Despite the multiple concerns brought up at a Nov. 10 public hearing on the project, mainly regarding elevation and flooding, this bill was passed unanimously by the council on Feb. 10.
The following bill simply authorized and approved the P.E.U for the aforementioned development.; it was passed unanimously by the council.
The last bill on zoning, too, passed unanimously. This bill was a request to rezone a 0.12-acre tract east of the intersection of Hildesheim Avenue and Heidelberg Avenue from a R-5 Residence District to a C-1 Neighborhood Business District. The intent is to allow prospective tenants to utilize the property with an appropriate light commercial use within a heavily residential area. An adjacent neighbor sent a letter of opposition, preferring the property be redeveloped with a single-family residence instead of a commercial use, though at a December public hearing, nine in attendance were in favor of the change, and no one spoke in opposition.
The final Archer-introduced bill that was discussed involved increasing the St. Louis County Assessor’s yearly salary from $95,000 to $150,000. Passed by a vote of 5-2, with opposing votes from District 5 Councilwoman Lisa Clancy and District 7 Councilman Mark Harder, the salary increase will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2027.
The discussion on elected officials’ salaries did not stop here. In a turn of events, District 2 Councilwoman Gretchen Bangert filed a motion to reconsider her vote on Bill 17, the Archer-introduced bill increasing the county executive’s yearly salary by $55,000 that had failed at the prior meeting by a vote of 3-3-1. Bangert’s motion was sustained, and the bill was perfected, despite opposing votes from Clancy and Harder, meaning a final passage vote will occur on the evening of Feb. 17.
“After further looking into salaries for neighboring counties and even the city of St. Louis for the executive and mayor, I do at this time feel that the proposed increase in salary is indeed appropriate at this time,” Bangert said. She went on to reference the fact that county executives are not permitted to hold additional jobs during their time in the role, as well as the amount of time the position requires. “This will not take effect until the new county executive comes on board, and if we do not pass this at this point in time, it will be 2031 before we can make a change in that salary.”
